Coalition To Promote The Safety of People and Canines

CANADA
PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
DISTRICT OF MONTREAL
S U P E R I O R C O U R T
_______________________________
No. 500-17-095764-166
Odette Lours,
and
The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals,
Plaintiffs
vs.
City of Montreal,
Defendant
and
The Attorney General of Quebec,
Respondent
and
Coalition to Promote the Safety of People and
Canines,
Me Anouk Laurent,
Solidarit dans la rue,
Dr. Sbastien Kfoury,
Dr. Judith Weissmann,
Dr. Allan Gilmour,
Dr. Florence Erdmann,
Dr. Marie-Claude LeBlanc
Intervenants
_______________________________
DECLARATION OF INTERVENTION
(Articles 184 et seq., 529 and 530 C.C.P.)
TO ONE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGES OF THE SUPERIOR COURT, SITTING IN

PRACTICE DIVISION IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTREAL, YOUR
INTERVENANTS RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
The Plaintiffs
The Intervenants
I. The Coalition
II. Anouk Laurent
III. Solidarit dans la rue
IV. The Veterinarians
The Facts
1
2
3
3
4
5
7
8
Page 1 of 41
The Interest of the Intervenant Veterinarians

12
Absence of Municipal Purpose: Improper Intrusion into Veterinarians Functions
13
The Provisions of the By-Law are Illogical, Irrational, Abusive and Irrelevant
15
The Provisions of the By-Law are Arbitrary, Unreasonable, Presumptuous, Hypothetical, Unreliable and Unscientific
17
Absence of Municipal Purpose: Abuse of Power and Contradiction with Other Laws
21
The Provisions of the By-Law are Unconstitutional: Violation of the Canadian and
Quebec Charters
26
The Provisions of the By-Law are Discriminatory
29
The Provisions of the By-Law are Vague, Imprecise, Unfair, Discretionary and
Abusive
32
The Provisions of the By-Law Violate Section 7 of the Canadian Charter and
Section 5 of the Quebec Charter
34
The Provisions of the By-Law Violate Procedural Equity and Ignore the New
Juridical Status of Animals
34
Use of Public Funds in Bad Faith and Contrary to the Proper Administration of
Justice
38
______________________________________________________________________________
1.
On September 28 2016, Plaintiffs instituted an application in judicial review and
suspension, as appears from the Court record;
2.
On October 03 2016, Honourable Justice Louis J. Gouin, J.S.C., rendered a
temporary order suspending various provisions of the new By-law Concerning Animal Control,
R.R.V.M., c. C-10 until October 05 2016, as appears from the Court record;
3.
On October 05 2016, Honourable Justice Gouin rendered a safeguard order
suspending the provisions of the aforementioned by-law until judgment on the merits of the
application of the SPCA, as follows:
POUR CES MOTIFS, LE TRIBUNAL:
[74] ACCUEILLE en partie la demande de sursis des Demanderesses;
[75] MAINTIENT lordonnance de sauvegarde du 3 octobre 2016;
[76] ORDONNE le sursis de lentre en vigueur des Dispositions litigieuses suivantes
du Rglement sur le contrle des animaux (le Rglement ), pour valoir jusqu la
dcision finale sur la Demande :
a. la dfinition des mots chien de type Pit bull de lSection 1, 10ime alina;
b. le paragraphe 2o de la dfinition des mots chien interdit de lSection 1, 12ime
alina;
c. la SOUS-SECTION 1 (PERMIS SPCIAL DE GARDE DUN CHIEN DE TYPE
PIT BULL) de la SECTION IV (PERMIS SPCIAUX DE GARDE);
d. la rfrence aux mots ou dun chien de type Pit bull du paragraphe 5o du 2ime
alina de lSection 19;
e. la rfrence aux mots ou dun chien de type Pit Bull [sic] du 2 ime alina de
lSection 27;
f. la rfrence aux mots ou dun chien de type Pit Bull [sic] du 3 ime alina de
lSection 44;
g. la rfrence aux mots ou dun chien de type Pit Bull [sic] de lSection 45;
h. lSection 55; et
Page 2 of 41
i. de faon gnrale, et ce, afin de pallier tout oubli dans lnumration des
Dispositions litigieuses,
toute rfrence dans le Rglement aux mots chien de type Pit bull ;
[77] ORDONNE lexcution provisoire de ce jugement nonobstant appel;
[78] LE TOUT, frais de justice suivre.
4.
On October 20 2016, Judge Manon Savard of the Court of Appeal granted the
Defendant leave to appeal, whilst maintaining the provisional execution of the first instance
judgment and authorized the proceedings in first instance to continue;
5.
On December 01,2016, the Court of Appeal granted the appeal in part, as appears
from par. 28, 30 and 31 of the Judgement:
POUR CES MOTIFS, LA COUR:
[28] ACCUEILLE lappel, avec frais de justice;
[]
[30] PREND ACTE de lengagement de la Ville de Montral, pour valoir jusquau
jugement de la Cour suprieure sur le pourvoi en contrle judiciaire, lequel nonce :
Les expressions utilises dans cet engagement qui sont dfinies dans le
Rglement sur le contrle des animaux, no 16 060 (le Rglement ), incluant
sans sy restreindre les expressions autorit comptente , chien risque ,
chien dangereux , chien de type Pit bull et refuge ont le sens qui leur
est attribu dans le Rglement.
[] [La Ville] sengage mettre une directive administrative leffet suivant
et en assurer le respect, destine toute personne constituant une autorit
comptente aux fins du Rglement, pour valoir jusquau jugement final tre
mis sur la Demande de pourvoi en contrle judiciaire des intimes :
aucune ordonnance deuthanasie pour quelque chien que ce soit, y

compris tout chien de type Pit bull, ne pourra tre rendue sans un
constat particularis par lautorit comptente leffet que ce chien est
un chien dangereux, risque, errant, mourant, gravement bless ou
hautement contagieux (cf. article 2, alina 2o du Rglement);
dans lapplication de larticle 45 du Rglement, le gardien dun animal,

incluant un chien de type Pitbull mais lexception dun chien risque,
dangereux ou hybride, peut en reprendre possession, moins que le
refuge ne sen soit dparti conformment larticle 44, en remplissant
les conditions prvues aux alinas 1o 3o de cet article.
[La Ville] prcise, dans la mesure o cela serait requis, quil nest pas contest :
aux fins de larticle 44, al. 3 du Rglement, quun chien de type Pit bull
peut tre mis en adoption pour tre gard lextrieur du territoire de la
Ville de Montral, ou encore dlivr un refuge situ lextrieur du
mme territoire; et
aux fins de la disposition transitoire contenue larticle 55 du

Rglement, que les conditions de garde dun chien de type Pit bull
dictes aux alinas 1o 3o de cette disposition trouvent application
lorsque lanimal se trouve lextrieur dun btiment (comme cest le
Page 3 of 41
cas en vertu de larticle 17 du Rglement).

[32] ORDONNE la Ville de Montral de sy conformer;
[]
6.
Intervenants respectfully request that this Honourable Court declare the by-law null,
invalid, without effect, and inoperative in its entirety; or alternatively declare the following
Articles of the By-law on Animal Control R.R.V.M. c. C-10 to be illegal, ultra vires, null,
unconstitutional, invalid and without effect: 1 al.3, 4, 10, 13, 18, 19 and 22; 2; 3; 15(1) and (2);
16; 17(1) and (2); 18; 27(2); 28; 32; 36; 38; 39; 42(3); 44; 45; 52; 53 and 55;
THE PLAINTIFFS
7.
The Plaintiff Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (the SPCA) is a nonprofit organization that was founded in 1869;
8.
The mission of the SPCA is to provide effective means for the prevention of cruelty
against animals and to search without respite for a better treatment of animals by humans by
means of public education, defense for animals rights, inspections, services for
accommodations, legislation and collaboration with allied organisations;
9.
Plaintiff Odette Lours is a natural person, resident of the city of Montreal, and is the
owner of a dog registered in the Plateau Mont-Royal borough as being an American
Staffordshire Terrier Type dog;
10.
Defendant is a legal person constituted pursuant to the Charter of the Ville de
Montral R.S.Q., chapter C-11.4;
THE INTERVENANTS
I - THE COALITION TO PROMOTE THE SAFETY OF PEOPLE AND CANINES
11.
The Coalition to Promote the Safety of People and Canines (the CPSPC) is a nonprofit organization registered at 3500 de Maisonneuve Boulevard West, Suite 2310, Montreal,
Quebec, H3Z 3C1, as appears from the registration documents produced herewith as
Intervenants Exhibit I-1;
12.
The mission of the CPSPC is to support municipal and provincial legislation that
promotes the safety and protection of people and dogs, to support public education in this regard
and to protect the welfare of companion animals;
13.
The CPSPC seeks to propose recognized and efficient solutions other than breedspecific bans in order to ensure public safety and protection of both human lives and the lives of
dogs, and the CPSPC further notes these are compatible goals;
14.
The Board of Directors of the CPSPC is composed of the following persons: Ms.
Sabrina Sabbah, Ms. Marie-France Ouimet, Me Anne-France Goldwater, Me Genevive Grey,
Me Julius Grey, Ms. Rachelle Urtnowski-Morin, Ms. Sylvie Prudhomme, Mrs. Jennifer Gailis,
Mr. Sbastien Larabe and Me Anouk Laurent, as appears from the details set out in Annex A
Page 4 of 41
produced herewith as Intervenants Exhibit I-2;

II - ANOUK LAURENT
15.
Me Anouk Laurent is on the Board of Directors of the CPSPC and also intervenes in
her own personal and individual capacity:
a. Me Laurent lives in Montreal (Borough of Cte-des-Neiges / Notre-Dame-deGrce). She and her husband own their home. Their dogs and cats are therefore
subject to legislation adopted by the City of Montreal;
b. She owns the following two dogs and two cats:
Vanille, a 7-year-old black dog;
Kobe, a 2-year-old dog;
Praline, a 5-year-old white and black cat;
Napolon, a 5-year-old grey cat;
c. Vanille and Kobe are vaccinated, microchipped, sterilized and wear a harness
when being walked. They each have a license from the City of Montreal and the
City of Westmount. Praline and Napolon are indoor cats and both are
vaccinated and sterilized;
d. Vanille is a service dog for Mr. Louis Boyer, Me Laurents husband, who
suffers from auditory impairment, and needs Vanille to be his ears both in the
home and, more importantly, outside the home;
e. Vanille was trained with the assistance of a professional dog trainer and its
training included certain work and task as a service dog, as appears from the
NSAR service animal card produced herewith as Intervenants Exhibit I-3;
f. On October 13 2016, Me Laurent dropped Vanilles leash while she was
trying to untangle it from the dogs hind legs;
g. Vanille ran toward another dog 2 meters away, and Me Laurent immediately
recovered her dog without incident;
h. Me Laurent asked Mrs. Cydney Mar, the woman walking the other dog (a
schnauzer), whether her dog was all right. Mrs. Mar responded by telling Me
Laurent to fuck off, so Me Laurent carried on her walk with her dogs;
i. Me Laurent later learned that Mrs. Mar filed a complaint with the SPVM
stating that Vanille had bitten her dog. There is no evidence that Mrs. Mars dog
was bitten by Vanille. The SPVM transmitted the complaint to the City of
Montreal;
j. The City of Montreal assigned Mrs. milie Archambault, a canine patroller, to
meet with Me Laurent and her husband on October 27 2016 to obtain Me
Laurents version and to explain the special provisions for at-risk dogs (Section
VII of the by-law), as appears from the Convocation valuation de chien ayant
mordu sent by the Direction de lamnagement urbain et des services aux
entreprises, produced herewith as Intervenants Exhibit I-4;
k. Me Laurent received a notice on November 07 2016 from the City of Montreal
informing her of the obligation, until further notice, to muzzle Vanille outside her
Page 5 of 41
home, as appears from the notice produced herewith as Intervenants Exhibit I-5;
l. An appointment for Vanille to be evaluated by Dr. Diane Frank, a veterinarian
specializing in canine behaviour and a professor at the Universit de Montral
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine was scheduled by the City of Montreal;
o. On November 23, 2016, Dr. Frank conducted her 30-minute evaluation of
Vanille in the presence of her husband and Mrs. Archambault;
p. Mrs. Archambault explained she could not confirm how long it would take to
issue a decision following receipt of Dr. Franks report, since any decision made
by Mr. Steve Desjardins, Mrs, Archambaults superior and Chef de division,
Permis et Inspections, will need to be approved by Ms. Sylvia-Anne Duplantie,
directrice de lamnagement urbain et des services aux entreprises and by Mr.
Stphane Plante, Directeur darrondissement. Mrs. Archambault also explained
that the City is not bound by Dr. Franks report;
q. Although Mr. Desjardins and his superiors have no qualifications of any kind
to make a decision pertaining to a dogs dangerousness, they can impose
measures that can lead to serious and irremediable consequences such as an order
of euthanasia or to keep a dog under restrictive conditions, and this, without
regard for the experts report;
r. Me Laurent respectfully submits that the by-law is characterized by a lack of
due process and its application is unreasonable and arbitrary;
III - SOLIDARIT DANS LA RUE
16.
Caroline Leblanc is currently completing a masters degree in social work at
Universit de Sherbrooke;
17.
She is the founder of Solidarit dans la Rue, a non-profit organization aimed at
improving health and living conditions of people living in the streets with a pet and people with
low income considered at risk to experience homelessness;
18.
On behalf of those experiencing homelessness and living in the streets of Montreal
with a pet, she foresees an increase in the number of tickets issued by police authorities to people
living in the streets with a pet as a result of the by-law;
19.
Since the number of the tickets has also increased substantially for offences under the
by-law, people experiencing homelessness will not be in a position to pay those tickets and face
the risk of being imprisoned and separated from their pets;
20.
People who experience homelessness suffer a prejudice under the new by-law as a
result of an increase in social profiling against them. Although social profiling has always been
an issue, it is likely to increase due to the presence of their pets and gives the police authorities
an additional reason to issue tickets;
21.
Numerous issues arise from the new by-law as it applies to pet owners experiencing
homelessness; these pet owners suffer a prejudice as a result of the by-law requirements which
may be listed as follows;
Page 6 of 41
i. The obligation to register the animal and obtain an animal tag;

ii. The obligation for a dog over 20kg to wear a harness or halter;
iii. The obligation to have the animal microchipped and sterilized as of 2019;
iv. The obligation to have the dog muzzled. In fact, under Article 17, dogs have
to be muzzled when they are outside a building, because these dogs live outside
on the street, they would be required to permanently wear a muzzle, 24-7, and
would be unable to properly eat, drink or interact with the owners of other
animals;
v. Specific provisions for those who have a dog that may be considered by the
Defendant as a pit bull-type dog, such as:
a) The cost of a pit bull-type dog permit ($ 150.00);
b) The high cost to get a special permit (upwards of $ 650.00);
c) The obligation to muzzle a pit bull-type dog;
d) The fact that people without a fixed address will not be able to obtain
this special permit;
e) The fact that people with a criminal record will not be able to obtain
this special permit;
22.
With respect to the obligation to obtain animal tags, the prejudice results from the
facts that only those having an acceptable proof of residence may register their pet and get the
tag, and people living in the street do not have a residence;
23.
With respect to the obligation to use harnesses or halters, the prejudice results from
the fact that it will be very difficult if not impossible for those experiencing homelessness to buy
such equipment for their dog:
24.
Those experiencing homelessness and people with low income suffer great prejudice
under the by-law since they are not be in a position to comply with its requirements;
25.
The provisions of sections 74 and 75 of the Code of Penal Procedure provide that:
74. A peace officer may arrest without a warrant a person informed of the offence
alleged against him who, despite the peace officers demand, fails or refuses to give
him his name and address or further information to confirm their accuracy.
The person so arrested must be released from custody by the person detaining him once
he gives his name and address or once their accuracy is confirmed.
75. A peace officer who finds a person committing an offence may arrest him without a
warrant if that is the only reasonable means available to him to put an end to the
commission of the offence.
Page 7 of 41
The person so arrested must be released from custody by the person detaining him once
the latter person has reasonable grounds to believe that detention is no longer necessary
to prevent, for the time being, the repetition or continuation of the offence.
26.
Moreover, the Code of Penal Procedure provides, notably in sections 237, 346 and
347, that a prison sentence may be imposed following the non-payment of eligible fines or when
a judge is convinced that the defendant, in such a case, would escape justice. Consequently, the
by-law can lead to the imposition of prison sentences;
27.
The prejudice of people experiencing homelessness also includes stress induced by
the fear of losing their pets and that of being imprisoned. These individuals are particularly
affected by the by-law because their pets provide them with companionship, support,
empowerment, unconditional love and a steady presence that diminishes their sense of
loneliness, their behavioural problems, their health issues, and that increases their capacity to
socialize;
IV THE VETERINARIANS
28.
Intervenant Dr. Sbastien Kfoury is a doctor of veterinary medicine, exercising his
profession at the Centre Vtrinaire de la Rive Sud and whose clientele is substantially from
Montreal;
29.
Intervenant Dr. Allan Gilmour is a doctor of veterinary medicine, exercising his
profession at the Animal Health Clinic;
30.
Intervenant Dr. Judith Weissmann is a doctor of veterinary medicine, exercising her
profession at the Clinique Vtrinaire Plateau Mont Royal;
31.
Intervenant Dr. Marie-Claude LeBlanc is a doctor of veterinary medicine, exercising
her profession at Clinique Vtrinaire Monkland;
32.
Intervenant Dr. Florence Erdmann is a doctor of veterinary medicine, exercising her
profession at the Pierrefonds Animal Hospital and whose clientele is substantially from
Montreal;
THE FACTS
33.
On September 27 2016, Defendant adopted the aforementioned by-law;
34.
Article 56 of the by-law states that it repeals and replaces any provision of a by-law
in effect on city territory concerning animal control;
35.
Among the definitions found in Article 1, the by-law provides that the expression
prohibited dog is defined as including Pit bull-type dogs;
prohibited dog:
(1) a dangerous dog;
(2) a Pit bull-type dog whose guardian does not hold a special license for a Pit bull-type
dog in accordance with this by-law;
Page 8 of 41
(3) a hybrid dog;
36.
A pit bull-type dog is defined in Article 1 as follows:

(1) a dog belonging to the American Pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier or
Staffordshire bull terrier race;
(2) a dog born of a crossbreeding between one of the races mentioned in paragraph (1)
and another dog;
(3) a dog showing several morphological traits of the races and types of crossbreeding
listed in paragraphs (1) and (2);
37.
As will be explained later in this proceeding, the description of the targeted breeds is
so broad as to encompass potentially the majority of dogs in the City of Montreal;
38.
A dangerous dog is defined as being:

(1) a dog that has caused the death of a person or of an animal of a permitted species
under article 3;
(2) an at-risk dog having been declared dangerous by the authority having jurisdiction;
39.
An at-risk dog is defined as being:

at-risk dog: a dog that tries to bite or attack, that bites or attacks, that acts so as to
jeopardize the safety of a person or an animal of a permitted species under article 3;
40.
A hybrid dog is defined as being:

hybrid dog: a dog bred from a mix between a dog and a canidae other than a dog;
41.
A stray animal is defined as being:

stray animal: any animal not held by a leash, that is not accompanied by a person
capable of controlling it and that is not on its guardians land, with the exception of a
community cat.
42.
Article 2 of the by-law confers to the authority having jurisdiction the power to:
(1) visit and inspect any occupancy unit for the purposes of this by-law;
(2) have or give orders to have euthanized any animal that is dangerous, at-risk,
prohibited, stray, dying, gravely injured or highly contagious;
(3) demand proof of sterilization of any dog or cat;
(4) demand that the guardian produce any documentation relevant to the application of
this by-law;
(5) apply to a judge to obtain permission to capture and seize, at the place where it is
being kept, any animal that contravenes this by-law or for which the guardian refuses
or neglects to comply with an order issued by the authority having jurisdiction.
For the purposes of paragraph (1), any owner, tenant, or occupant of an occupancy unit,
must, upon presentation of a piece of identification by the authority having jurisdiction,
Page 9 of 41
give access to the occupancy unit.

No person may hinder, in any way, the capture of an animal by the authority having
jurisdiction.
It is an offence under this by-law to inconvenience, to insult, to prohibit or impede in
any manner the access referred to in paragraph (1) of the first paragraph or to otherwise
obstruct that access, as well to deny or neglect to comply with a request that is made
under this by-law.
43.
In Article 3, the by-law arbitrarily sets out a restrictive list of the species of animals
that citizens may own;
44.
In Article 3(1), the by-law bans all persons from possessing or having, for any
purpose whatsoever, an animal that falls in the category of prohibited dogs which includes pit
bull-type dogs;
45.
Article 8 of the by-law prohibits any Pit bull-type dogs from being brought within
the city limits;
46.
In Articles 15(1) and 15(2), the by-law arbitrarily limits the number of animals per
unit of residential space to two dogs and four animals, i.e. a total of four animals of all species
(for instance, two dogs and two cats), whereas a unit of residential space means absolutely
nothing: some people live in 500 square feet of residential space and others live in 5,000
square feet of residential space. In some such spaces, 4 animals would be far too many, as in
others, more than 4 animals could live comfortably;
47.
Article 16 of the by-law provides that the acquisition of Pit bull-type dogs is
prohibited as of the date of coming into force of the by-law; so, all Pit bull-type dogs whose
owners do not obtain the special license or who are born after the coming into force of the bylaw risk to be killed or seized by the City of Montreal and the owners will be fined;
48.
Articles 16 and 17 of the by-law provide that Pit bull-type dogs acquired before the
date of coming into force of the by-law will be subject to a special license and to special
conditions;
49.
Amongst these conditions, Article 16(2)(5) provides that an applicant must furnish a
certificate of negative search of a criminal record or, in the case of a certificate of positive search
of a criminal record, a certificate issued by the S.P.V.M. confirming that in the five years prior to
the date of filing or renewal of the license application the applicant has not been declared guilty
of an offence under a provision listed in Schedule 1 of the by-law;
50.
In all cases, such special license is non-assignable and non-transferable, save for in
the event of the death of the guardian. So, in other circumstances where an owner or guardian
cannot continue to care for his or her dog, the dog will be killed by the City of Montreal;
51.
Article 17(1) of the by-law provides that a pit bull-type dog benefiting from a
special license must be muzzled at all times, a requirement that is in blatant contradiction with
the provincial animal welfare legislation and accompanying regulations that set out the basic
living needs of domestic animals, including, suitable and sufficient access to food and water, and
in the case of dogs, the possibility to pant, which is how dogs thermoregulate themselves and
Page 10 of 41
which requires that the dog be able to open its mouth. The legislation also requires that animals
not be distressed, and that dogs be provided with stimulation, socialization and environmental
enrichment consistent with their biological needs;
52.
Furthermore, according to the last paragraph of Article 17, if the license is revoked,
the dog will be killed, even if he has never demonstrated any aggressive behaviour;
53.
Article 18 of the by-law provides that the following are guilty of an offence:
(1) the guardian of a dog who contravenes a special condition imposed under article 17;
(2) the guardian of a dog referred to in Section 17, who, within 48 hours following the
order for euthanasia issued by the authority having jurisdiction, has not brought the dog
to a veterinary surgeon or a shelter to have it euthanized;
(3) the guardian who, within 72 hours of the death of their dog, fails to provide the
authority having jurisdiction with a certificate signed by the person who performed the
euthanasia.
54.
Article 27(2) of the by-law proposes a different treatment in the context an owner or
guardian getting rid of his dog, depending on whether the animal is a dog at risk or a Pit bulltype dog: in the case of the latter, the dog must be given to a shelter or a veterinarian, and may
not be transferred to a new guardian;
55.
Article 28(1) of the by-law provides that no one may possess an animal that is not a
species permitted by Section 3, and that any animal not mentioned in Section 3 is considered a
nuisance, whether or not the animal is in fact a nuisance to anybody at all;
56.
Article 32(1) of the by-law provides that when a dog is considered at risk within
the meaning of Section 31, and is declared dangerous for public safety, the guardian of the dog
must kill the dog upon an order for euthanasia being issued by the competent authority;
whereas if the dog is not declared dangerous, the competent authority may require that the
guardian obtain a special license for the dog at risk and that he abide by specific conditions
applicable to dogs at risk;
57.
Article 36 of the by-law provides specific conditions (keeping the animal muzzled at
all times, the length of the leash, etc.) which must be respected by the guardian of a dog at risk,
failing which the license holder is considered to be guilty of an infraction which entails the
revocation of his license and possibly an order for euthanasia issued by the competent
authority;
58.
Article 38 of the by-law provides that all expenses incurred by the City of Montreal
in the application of the article are charged to the guardian of the animal;
59.
Article 39 of the by-law considers the guardian of an animal to be guilty of an
offence in the following conditions:
(2) the guardian of a dog covered by this article, who, within 48 hours following the
Page 11 of 41
to a veterinary surgeon or a shelter so that it is euthanized;

(3) the guardian who, within 72 hours of the death of their dog, fails to provide to the
euthanasia.
60.
Article 42(3) of the by-law prohibits the use of a ball, a stick or any other object to
make a dog exercise when another guardians dog is in the exercise area;
61.
Article 44 of the by-law provides that the putting Pit bull-type dogs up for adoption
is prohibited as of the date of coming into force of the by-law, and that the authority having
jurisdiction will order that such dogs be killed;
62.
Article 45 of the by-law provides that if a pit bull-type dog strays from its owner,
the owner is prohibited from recovering the dog, and the dog will be killed by the City of
Montreal, the whole, as of the date of coming into force of the by-law;
63.
Article 52 of the by-law stipulates that it is impermissible to issue or renew a license
to a person or in respect of an animal, who has been found guilty of three infractions resulting
from a bite or an attack, or an attempted bite or attack;
64.
Article 53 of the by-law provides that the owner of an animal is responsible for any
infraction even if the animal was not under his care, unless he proves that at the time of the
infraction, the animal was under the care of a third party under the age of 18 years, other than a
member of his family, without his knowledge or consent, explicit or implicit;
65.
Article 55 of the by-law provides that, as of the coming into force and until the
obtainment of a special license, the guardian of any pit bull-type dog must respect the specific
conditions of custody such as the obligation to muzzle the animal at all times, thereby preventing
the dog from being able to eat, drink or regulate its body temperature (dogs regulate their body
temperature by panting, and muzzles do not permit dogs to extend their tongues from their
mouths to pant);
66.
It is therefore forbidden for any person to have a pit bull-type dog except under the
special conditions mentioned above;
67.
The authority having jurisdiction, to which the by-law refers, is defined in Article
1 as being any civil servant or employee responsible for the application of this by-law, a peace
officer, as well as any representative of a business whose services are retained by the city for the
enforcement of this by-law;
68.
Your Intervenants respectfully submit that the provisions of the by-law pertaining to
pit bull-type dogs are illegal and of no effect because they are manifestly ultra vires of the
delegated legislative power of a municipality, the provisions have no valid municipal purpose,
and are also discriminatory, unreasonable, abusive, irrational and null by reason of ordinary
principles of administrative law governing the validity of municipal by-laws, as well as
infringing upon constitutionally guaranteed rights. Finally, the by-law is superseded by the
provisions of the Animal Welfare and Safety Act, chapter B-3.1 and the accompanying
Regulations Respecting the Safety and Welfare of Dogs and Cats, chapter P-42, r. 10.1;
Page 12 of 41
THE INTEREST OF THE INTERVENANT VETERINARIANS

69.
The veterinarian Intervenants are directly affected by this by-law and have a real and
legitimate interest to seek the judicial review of the legality of the by-law;
70.
The lives of these professionals are dedicated to providing health care, promoting
quality of life and welfare for animals of all kinds, including Pit bull-type dogs;
71.
This profession is at the heart of the human-animal relationship, and veterinarians are
the point of reference for the public for all issues concerning animal health;
72.
Their role includes the promotion of the utmost of care for their animal patients, the
recognition of animals as sentient beings, the safety of the public, and the preservation of their
good reputation to the public by the promotion of top quality veterinary services;
73.
Veterinarians and their staff are called upon daily to examine, evaluate and provide
medical treatment and surgical care to dogs who may attack or bite them. In addition,
veterinarians and their staff are also called upon to administer the final mercy of euthanasia upon
aging or ailing animals, upon consultation with the guardians of the animals;
74.
Veterinarians also perform medical acts which are reserved to them, and which are
governed by the by-law, such as vaccination, sterilization, and prescription of personalized
medical care after evaluation and diagnosis of the animal, including, for example, behavioural
therapy and medication;
75.
It is for all these reasons that Ordre professionnel des mdecins vtrinaires du
Qubec (hereinafter referred to as OMVQ) was part of the Comit ministriel de travail sur
lencadrement des chiens dangereux, mandated to formulate recommendations with respect to
the framework of dangerous dogs, that has submitted its report to the Quebec government on
August 29, 2016;
76.
More precisely, the Committees mission was to provide the government technical,
scientific and legal expertise to permit a reflection on the best model to regulate dangerous dogs
in Quebec;
77.
In addition, the Intervenant veterinarians are both educated and experienced in
dealing with dangerous dogs of all different sizes and temperaments and with dogs at risk of
becoming dangerous, in the rehabilitation of such dogs where possible, and in protecting people
and other animals who come into contact with such dogs; and in the course of their professional
practice, the Intervenants are called upon to do so;
78.
Moreover, the Intervenant veterinarians are the first-hand observers of the physical,
psychological, emotional and moral support, assistance and comfort that animals provide to the
human families with whom they live, and the impact on the human families of the adoption of
the present by-law, which deliberately targets a large population of behaviourally sound and
healthy animals, with consequences ranging from constant muzzling, to confinement and death;
79.
By virtue of the Intervenant veterinarians functions and their professional
obligations, any animal regulations on the territory of their practice and in which the majority of
their clients live concerns them directly;
Page 13 of 41
80.
Finally, the Intervenant veterinarians note that the description of the prohibited
breeds of dogs is so broad as to encompass potentially the majority of dogs in the City of
Montreal; also, the people who are engaged by the City to identify the prohibited dogs are
incapable of doing so in any reliable fashion;
ABSENCE OF MUNICIPAL
VETERINARIANS FUNCTIONS
PURPOSE:
IMPROPER
INTRUSION
INTO
81.
Veterinarians have particular difficulties of a moral and ethical nature arising from
the application of the by-law;
82.
Veterinarians Intervenants have sworn to perform all their professional acts to the
best of their knowledge and judgment, and refrain from doing anything that may compromise the
honour and dignity of their profession, as appears from Schedule 1 of the Regulation respecting
the terms and conditions for the issue of permits and specialists certificates by the Ordre
professionnel des mdecins vtrinaires du Qubec, chapter M-8, r. 7, produced herewith as
83.
They must practice their profession in accordance with the Code of Ethics of
Veterinary Surgeons;
84.
Section 4 of the Code of Ethics of Veterinary Surgeons stipulates that veterinarians
shall practice the profession in accordance with the recognized standards of practice and the
present state of knowledge in medical science;
85.
Moreover, by virtue of Section 54 of the Code of Ethics of Veterinary Surgeons,
veterinarians shall refuse to perform any operation which could endanger the wellbeing of the
animal or a population of animals or which, in [] [their] opinion, entails useless suffering;
86.
As veterinarians, Intervenants also engage an ethical duty to the people who entrust
their animals to their care;
87.
By virtue of Section 8 of the Code of Ethics of Veterinary Surgeons, veterinarians
shall seek to establish a relation of mutual trust with the client and shall not practise the
profession in a brusque or impersonal manner;
88.
By virtue of Section 8.1 of the Code of Ethics of Veterinary Surgeons, Intervenants
shall obtain the free and enlightened consent of the client before undertaking a diagnostic
procedure or treatment, except in case of emergency and the clients timely consent cannot be
obtained;
89.
Veterinarian Intervenants also consider being unable to correctly identify the breed
of a dog (especially one that is crossbred) using the dogs physical appearance could infringe, in
certain cases, a veterinarians obligations to carry on his professional activities with integrity, as
provided in Section 9 of the Code of Ethics of Veterinary Surgeons;
90.
When an animal must be euthanized as part of end-of-life care, it is veterinarians
who must prescribe such euthanasia, in accordance with the rules and ethical constraints
governing the practice of veterinary medicine, and moreover, in accordance with the professional
Page 14 of 41
conscience of each veterinarian;

91.
Veterinarian Intervenants believe that euthanasia as a recourse, even when legitimate,
must remain an exceptional measure and a last recourse;
92.
The practice itself constitutes an intense emotional and psychological event which
exposes intervening veterinary practitioners to the risk of post-traumatic stress, as illustrated in a
study by Whiting and Marion, Perpetration-induced traumatic stress - A risk for veterinarians
involved in the destruction of healthy animals, produced herewith as Intervenants Exhibit I-7.
Here is an extract:
An accumulated body of research demonstrates that psychosocial health and the risk of
suicide varies between occupational groups. The delivery of euthanasia and the
negative effect it may have on the mental health of veterinarians and staff delivering
humane killing has been a concern for many years. Recently, two rigorous systematic
reviews on prevalence of suicide in veterinarians and the prevalence of non-fatal
suicidal behaviour in veterinarians have been published. The better quality research
indicates that in the UK, the rate of suicide in the veterinary profession is at least three
times the general population rate.
93.
Veterinarians Intervenants are also concerned that they and their colleagues will be
instrumentalized as executioners by virtue of Article 25 of the by-law that provides:
25. No one may put an end to the life of an animal, except a veterinary surgeon or a
person duly authorized by law;
94.
Veterinarians Intervenants are also concerned that they and their colleagues will be
called upon to authorize the killing of healthy animals which present no danger to anyone, and in
fact will be subject to social and legal pressure to do so, thereby compelling some to act against
the dictates of their conscience and their ethics;
95.
Veterinarians have a moral and ethical duty to not kill young and healthy dogs, save
for in the most unusual of circumstances;
96.
Moreover, under Section 12 of the Animal Welfare and Safety Act, prior to
euthanizing an animal, a veterinarian must ensure that the circumstances are not cruel;
97.
In fact, there is every reason to believe that all Pit bull-type dogs in Montreal, who
are not in the custody of a person who obtained a license, would be euthanized;
98.
Thus, the by-law places on them the duty and creates a necessity of killing healthy
animals in the prime of life, for no reason other than the whim of a governmental agency, which
is cruel and therefore contrary to the Code of Ethics of Veterinary Surgeons and the Animal
Welfare and Safety Act;
99.
As a consequence of this by-law, many healthy and behaviourally sound dogs and
puppies will be facing death, a practice that cannot be assimilated to euthanasia, to avoid
delegitimizing legitimate euthanasia;
100.
With due consideration to the preceding, Veterinarian Intervenants, as veterinary
surgeons, are of the opinion that the by-law represents an abusive intrusion into their functions,
obliging them to make professional decisions that are not based on the recognized standards of
Page 15 of 41
practice and the present state of knowledge in medical science, such requirement nonetheless
foreseen at Section 4 of the Code of Ethics of Veterinary Surgeons;
101.
Moreover, in many situations, Veterinarian Intervenants will not be able to comply
with the by-law, the Code of Ethics of Veterinary Surgeons, and the Animal Welfare and Safety
Act at the same time. It is contrary to fundamental values for a society to impose conflicting legal
duties upon its citizens, making it impossible for them to be in compliance with all their legal
duties;
102.
The legal conflict of values and professional ethics resulting from the application of
the provisions of the by-law will cause abusive and unnecessary stress to veterinarians, and risk
impinging upon their mental health;
103.
Veterinarian Intervenants respectfully submit that it falls outside any conception of a
valid municipal purpose to interfere with professional ethics by requiring, notably in
unexceptional circumstances, the killing of an animal;
104.
The entire by-law is ultra vires and therefore null;
THE PROVISIONS OF THE BY-LAW ARE ILLOGICAL, IRRATIONAL, ABUSIVE

AND IRRELEVANT
105.
The impugned by-law targets pit bull-type dogs, whether pure bred or crossbreeds, and whether in fact actually pit bull type dogs or merely resembling pit bull type
dogs;
106.
Intervenants respectfully submit that the choice to target such a potentially vast
population of dogs is manifestly illogical, irrational and abusive, and in fact is completely
irrelevant to the stated legislative goal of legislating with respect to dangerous dogs, because:
a. Pit bull-type dogs are not an identifiable race of dog, nor are they in fact
easy to identify or distinguish from many other kinds of dogs;
b. Pit bull-type dogs are not inherently dangerous, so the by-law is not in fact
reasonably related or connected to safety and protection of the public, and
necessarily creates a false sense of security;
c. Pit bull-type dogs do not bite with more force than other dogs nor do their
jaws lock nor are they more aggressive nor do they have a genetic disposition to
bite nor do they bite more severely than other dogs all these are myths that
have been repeatedly debunked;
d. The by-law deliberately ignores alternatives that are much less intrusive than
the banning of specific breeds. The breed-specific ban promoted by the by-law
necessarily leads to disproportional and systematic slaughter of innocent dogs,
an increase illegitimate and unjustified euthanasia of healthy dogs, a substantial
reduction in adoptions and an irrational, partial and unfair instrumentalization of
certain dog breeds to give an impression, albeit false, of pursuit of the objective
of public safety;
Page 16 of 41
e. The by-law fails to achieve its goal of public safety by defining a group of
dogs that is so vague and over-broad that in fact, it propagates precisely the type
of scientific error that has led to a demonization of pit bull-type dogs in the
first place;
107.
The problem of identification of the impugned dogs is exacerbated by the French
words race and type in referring to different breeds of dogs, whereas in fact, like the
human species (Homo sapiens), all dog breeds are classified in the taxonomic genus and group
canis lupus familiaris;
108.
Scientific studies have demonstrated that a dogs breed is not a determining factor as
to the number of incidents nor the severity of bites, the whole as appears from the studies done
by Ott et al. (2008), Schalke et al. (2008) et MacNeil-Allcock et al. (2011), already produced as
Plaintiffs Exhibit P-15, en liasse, the official policies of the Canadian Veterinary Medical
Association and the American Veterinary Medical Association, already produced as Plaintiffs
Exhibit P-16 and P-17 and the OMVQs Report submitted to the Comit de travail sur
lencadrement des chiens dangereux du Ministre de la Scurit publique already produced as
Plaintiffs Exhibit P-18;
109.
Scientific studies have demonstrated that regulatory measures that target certain
specific breeds do not reduce the number of incidents nor the severity of bites, as appears from
studies done by Patronek et al. (2010, 2013), Clarke et al. (2013), Rosado et al. (2007) and
Collier (2007), produced herewith as Plaintiffs Exhibit P-19, en liasse, the official policies of
the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behaviour and the Ordre professionnel des mdecins
vtrinaires du Qubec, produced herewith as Plaintiffs Exhibit P-20 and P-21, and the
OMVQs Report submitted to the Comit de travail sur lencadrement des chiens dangereux du
Ministre de la Scurit publique produced herewith as Plaintiffs Exhibit P-18;
110.
Thus, the provisions of the by-law are not pursuing the objective of protection
claimed by the Defendant, apart from being irrelevant, abusive, irrational, and therefore ultra
vires and null;
THE PROVISIONS OF THE BY-LAW ARE ARBITRARY, UNREASONABLE,
PRESUMPTUOUS, HYPOTHETICAL, UNRELIABLE AND UNSCIENTIFIC
111.
Veterinarian Intervenants also submit that the provisions of the by-law are
unscientific for the following reasons:
a. The by-law presumes that pit bull-type dogs as described therein are
disproportionately more dangerous than other dogs, while the American
Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) has repeatedly stated that there is no
scientific evidence that pit bull-type dogs are disproportionately more
dangerous than any other breed of dog, as explained in research conducted by
the National Canine Research Council (NCRC): Denvers Breed-Specific
Legislation: Brutal, Costly, and Ineffective, which refers to the AVMAs Report
of 2012, respectively produced herewith as Intervenants Exhibits I-8 and I-9;
b. The by-law relies on the type of dog and its physical appearance, criteria
that have been proven to be useless in predicting dog behaviour because each
dog is an individual and there is great variability even within each breed, the
Page 17 of 41
whole, as is more fully explained in research conducted by the NCRC, Dog

Breed Specific Legislation The Cost to People, Pets and Veterinarians, and
the Damage to the Human-Animal Bond, p. 4, produced herewith as
Intervenants Exhibits I-10;
c. The by-law relies on a dogs phenotype to determine if it is a pit bull-type
dog, when pit bull-type dogs are not in fact a breed, are necessarily born of
one (or many) cross-breeds and can, moreover, be born of parents that are
themselves born of one (or many) cross-breeds, which underscores the
unreliability of attempting to identify the breed of a dog. A dog may have pit
bull-type dogs in its ancestry and look nothing like a pit bull-type dog
according to the physical and morphological characteristics on which the
Defendant relies. Conversely, according to these morphological
characteristics, a dog may look like a pit bull-type dog but have no pit
bull-type dogs in its ancestry. Equating appearance and phenotypic
identification is simply wrong. Moreover, the handful of genes that determine
a dogs appearance have no link to the genes that determine a dogs character
and temperament as appears from research and studies of Irizarry, Ted Brewer,
John Paul Scott and John L. Fuller, produced herewith as Intervenants Exhibits
I-11 to I-13;
d. The by-law relies on a dogs morphology to determine if it is considered a pit
bull-type dog, when it is virtually impossible to determine the genetic makeup
of a mixed-breed dog through visual identification. A dog may erroneously be
identified as a pit bull-type dog who is simply a mix of dozens of different
breeds of dogs, but not at all of any of the identified breeds;
e. Moreover, the by-law relies on a dogs morphology to determine if it is to be
considered a pit bull-type dog, when in the same litter, dogs may not look like
their parents or earlier ancestors, as appears from the studies produced herewith
as Intervenants Exhibit I-13 and Voith et al. (2009, 2013) and Olson et al.
(2015), produced herewith as Plaintiffs Exhibit P-22, en liasse;
f. The by-law relies on visual identification based on a dogs appearance that is
unscientific, speculative, hypothetical and unreliable because of the scientific
fact of inherent randomness of phenotypic expression in every individual,
and that such unreliability is heightened when identifying mixed-breed dogs, the
whole as appears from Intervenants Exhibits I-10 and Plaintiffs Exhibit P-22,
en liasse;
g. The reliable identification of pit bull-type dogs is impossible through any
scientific means such as DNA, as admitted by the Defendant the same day as the
day of the by-law adoption;
h. The by-law does not consider the consensus of experts on the subject, rejects
the scientific data available to all, and proposes no efficient or rational means to
attain the objective of protection, allowing the application of the by-law based
on gros bon sens as declared by Mme Anie Samson, Mayor of the
arrondissement Villeray-Saint-Michel-Parc-Extension and president of the
Commission sur la scurit publique, as appears from the original audio file that
Page 18 of 41
allowed the broadcasting of the relevant passage by Projet Montral, which

was captured at a formal information session to the attention of elected officials,
on September 21th, 2016, the microphones having been left open and the Journal
de Montral article, taking up the relevant passage of the audio, respectively
produced herewith as Intervenants Exhibits I-14 and I-15. This reference to
common sense flies in the face of the actual scientific reality, as explained
herein;
i. At the end of the day, a dog is a dog is a dog. Visual identification of breed
is notoriously unreliable. DNA identification is not reliable if the goal is to
determine if a dog is a pit bull-type dog, whatever that means.
Appearance has nothing to do with temperament or behaviour. The entire
debate about breed specific legislation is absolute nonsense. Laws should
not propagate nonsense nor should they be predicated upon nonsense.
j. Laws that have public health and safety as their goal must target all dogs
and all dog owners in a manner that promotes these valid goals, based on
scientific understanding about health and disease and about behaviour and
temperament;
112.
The Defendant has confirmed that the visual identification to determine which dogs
should be considered pit bull-type dogs will rely on the Association canine canadiennes
document that defines the physical and morphological characteristics of these dogs, as appears
from the transcription of the question period of Montreal City Council meeting of September
26th, 2016, produced herewith as Intervenants Exhibit I-16;
113.
The Intervenants note that the Canadian Canine Association does not exist, so
the Defendant, through its employee Anie Samson, was simply not telling the truth to the
municipal councillors;
114.
The American Dog Breeders Association publishes a list of de visu criteria
supposedly permitting the identification of pit bull type-dogs and this list is cited in the
OMVQ Report, p. 19, already produced as Plaintiffs Exhibit P-18. To be considered to be a pit
bull type dog, a dog must demonstrate a substantial number of physical characteristics:
a. premire vue, le chien doit paratre dallure carre de ct et sa hauteur, du sol
jusqu la pointe de lpaule, devrait tre de mme distance que de la pointe craniale
des paules jusquau point le plus distal des hanches;
b. Le ratio poids et hauteur devrait tre proportionnel;
c. Le pelage devrait tre court et dit poil unique (absence dautres types de poils)
d. La tte devrait paratre de forme cuniforme lorsque vue de ct ou du dessus, mais
ronde lorsque vue de face;
e. La tte devrait tre environ le 2/3 de la largeur des paules et 25% plus large aux
joues qu la base du crne (d aux muscles des joues trs dvelopps);
f. La distance de larrire du crne aux yeux devrait tre quivalente la distance des
yeux au bout du nez;
g. Le chien doit avoir une bonne profondeur/hauteur de tte et un museau droit et de
Page 19 of 41
forme carre;
h. Les yeux sont petits, et placs en profondeur, de forme triangulaire lorsque vus de
ct et elliptique lorsque vus de face;
i. Les paules doivent tre plus larges que la cage thoracique la hauteur de la 8e cte;
j. Les coudes devraient tre non prominents et les membres antrieurs descendants
paralllement avec la colonne vertbrale;
k. Les pattes antrieures devraient tre lourdes et solides, et prs de deux fois
lpaisseur des pattes arrire juste au-dessous du jarret;
l. La cage thoracique devrait tre profonde et les ctes sont allonges et descendent de
faon droite (forme elliptique en coupe transverse) et non arrondie en forme de tonneau;
m. La queue est tenue vers le bas, dans une position rappelant les anciennes pompes
main et elle descend environ jusqu larticulation du tarse;
n. Les hanches devraient tre larges permettant une bonne attache des muscles fessiers
et des cuisses;
o. Larticulation du genou devrait tre dans le premier 1/3 de la hauteur du membre
postrieur et les os situs sous le genou devraient apparatre fins, lgers et allongs;
p. De faon gnrale, le chien devrait avoir une apparence athltique et le standard ne
fait aucune mention au niveau des oreilles, de la couleur, du poids ou de la taille
danimal;
115.
The OMVQ Report underscores that relying upon this broad range of physical
characteristics to identify the breed of a dog is difficile, biaise et peu fiable, and can lead to
[des] erreurs frquentes dans lidentification et dans la certification, as appears from the
OMVQ Report, p. 19, produced herewith as Plaintiffs Exhibit P-18;
116.
Along these same lines, Dr. Gabrielle Carrires declaration confirms that the
identification of a dogs breed based on physical characteristics is unreliable, and this, even if the
identification is done by experts in the field such as veterinarians, as appears from the studies
done by Voith et al. (2009, 2013) and Olson et al. (2015), produced herewith as Plaintiffs
Exhibit P-22, en liasse, the official policies of the American Veterinary Society of Animal
Behaviour and the American Veterinary Medical Association, produced herewith as Plaintiffs
Exhibits P-20 and P-17;
117.
Also, the OMVQ Report states that identification solely based on morphological and
physical criteria is problematic because such descriptions encompass a broad range of dogs that
could be wrongly classified as pit bull-type dogs, as appears in an extract at pages 19 and 20,
already produced as Plaintiffs Exhibit P-18:
la lecture de lensemble de ces critres, nous ralisons la complexit didentifier et
surtout de distinguer avec une prcision raisonnable les individus qui en font partie.
Mais, galement, que cette description englobe une multitude de chiens qui
pourraient, de faon errone, tre classs dangereux si les critres physiques et
morphologiques sont les seuls utiliss pour cette classification. Cest pour toutes ces
raisons que les erreurs didentification et de certification de chiens de type Pitbull
sont si frquentes. Toute rglementation municipale qui assortirait le bannissement des
chiens de type Pitbull devrait prvoir des modalits prcises lgard de lidentification
et de la certification des chiens, car dans bon nombre de cas il sera impossible pour un
Page 20 of 41
mdecin vtrinaire ou un employ municipal de confirmer une race de chien ou le type

Pitbull compte tenu des croisements si frquents.
[Emphasis added]
118.
Veterinarian Intervenants respectfully submit that the dangerousness of a dog is not a
function of its appearance, but how the dog is trained and treated by its human owner. Breedspecific bans are futile as illustrated in a literature review conducted by the AVMA, Dog Bite
Risk and Prevention: The Role of Breed, produced herewith as Intervenants Exhibit I-17. Here
is an extract of the conclusion:
Given that breed is a poor sole predictor of aggressiveness and pit bull-type dogs are
not implicated in controlled studies it is difficult to support the targeting of this breed
as a basis for dog bite prevention.
119.
Veterinarian Intervenants respectfully submit that other breeds of dogs will
eventually be targeted, based on the same irrational and illogical belief in differences in canine
behaviour based on appearance, whereas in fact, there is greater variability in behaviour between
individuals of a given breed than between breeds;
120.
Veterinarian Intervenants respectfully submit that Defendant has knowingly adopted
a by-law that is irrational, illogical, based on erroneous and misleading statistics, including
referencing the Report of Bini and al., 2011, Mortality, Mauling and Maiming by Vicious Dogs,
Annals of Surgery, vol. 253, no 4, 791-797, conducted by physicians studying humans and not
animals, already produced as Defendants Exhibit R-2. It is evident from the methodology of this
Report that no steps were taken to scientifically validate the identification of the dogs implicated
in the bite injuries reported;
121.
Veterinarian Intervenants respectfully submits that a solution based on science and
reason, rather than common sense and emotion, should have been favoured in order to properly
regulate dogs that are actually dangerous, to foster the responsibility of the owners of such dogs,
and to educate citizens in general about companion animals;
122.
Intervenants respectfully submit that Defendants by-law was hastily put together,
poorly drafted on its face, and was adopted in reaction to a tragic event. In fact, the impugned
dog that killed Mrs. Vadnais on June 8th, 2016 was registered as a boxer, and Defendant has
interestingly never publicly released the results of the DNA test done on the dog so as matters
stand, there is of all fatal attacks on humans in the history of statistics in Quebec, no such attack
is imputable to a pit bull-type dog;
ABSENCE OF MUNICIPAL PURPOSE: ABUSE OF POWER AND CONTRADICTION
WITH OTHER LAWS
123.
The Defendant is not a sovereign legislature and its legislative powers are limited to
those delegated to it;
124.
The transfer of power that heretofore enabled municipalities to limit the number of
animals by unit of habitation was abolished on January 01 2006 by Section 194 of the Municipal
Powers Act which abrogated a series of provisions including Section 412 (19.1) of the Cities and
Towns Act (RLRQ c. C-19), which reads as follows:
412. The council may make by-laws: []
Page 21 of 41
19.1
a) To regulate or prohibit the keeping of animals, or categories of animals, and limit the
number of animals that a person may keep in or on any immovable;
125.
Prior to this, most municipalities would fix an arbitrary number of animals permitted
per housing unit, in accordance with strict parameters relating to sanitation and nuisance;
126.
Since the abrogation of Section 412(19.1) of the Cities and Towns Act, the provincial
government has repatriated this legislative power, as appears from Section 29 of the Animal
Welfare and Safety Act:
29. The Minister may attach any conditions, restrictions or prohibitions the Minister
considers appropriate, including limiting the number of animals the license holder may
keep on the premises concerned, to a license at the time it is issued or to a license that
has already been issued. The conditions, restrictions or prohibitions are specified on the
license.
127.
Furthermore, Section 63 of the Municipal Powers Act (mentioned in the introductory
provisions of the by-law) provides that:
63. A local municipality may impound, sell for profit or eliminate a stray or dangerous
animal. It may also have an animal suffering from a contagious disease isolated until
cured, or eliminated, on a certificate from a veterinary surgeon.
The municipality may also enter into an agreement to authorize a person to enforce a
by-law concerning animals. The person with whom the municipality enters into an
agreement and the persons employees have the powers of employees of the
municipality for the purposes of the enforcement of the municipal by-law.
This section applies despite any inconsistent provision of the Agricultural Abuses Act
(chapter A-2);
128.
Considering the above, the Defendant has exceeded its legislative powers by
arbitrarily limiting the number of animals per unit of residential space to two dogs and four
animals, i.e. a total of four animals of all species (for instance, two dogs and two cats), as can be
seen in Article 15 of the by-law:
15. It is prohibited:
(1) to keep more than 2 dogs in an occupancy unit;
(2) to keep more than 4 animals, all permitted species combined, in an occupancy unit;
129.
Sections 4 and 62 of the Municipal Powers Act stipulate as follows concerning the
municipal competence in the area of safety:
4. In addition to the areas of jurisdiction conferred on it by other Acts, a local
municipality has jurisdiction in the following fields:
7 safety;
[...]
62. A local municipality may adopt by-laws in matters of safety.
The municipality may remove an obstacle in the public domain at the expense of a
person who fails to comply with a municipal by-law to that effect.
Page 22 of 41
130.
The Municipal Powers Act does not give a power at large to a municipality to
regulate the terms, conditions or particulars of a persons relationship with his or her pets;
131.
Nonetheless, the provisions of the impugned by-law pertaining to pit bull-type
dogs improperly allow the Defendant to impound or eliminate these dogs which are neither
strays, nor dangerous, nor suffering from a contagious disease;
132.
The provisions of the impugned by-law prohibit the adoption of pit bull-type dogs
and allow the Defendant to kill dogs which are not dangerous; these provisions are patently ultra
vires, because the enabling legislation limits the areas into which the Defendant may legitimately
venture;
133.
For greater clarity, the Defendant simply does not have the power to prohibit a breed
of dogs at large; the Defendants power is strictly limited to legislating about dangerous animals,
which presupposes a legitimate process to assessing an individual animals dangerousness, a
process which must include a right to contest such assessment, and then an appropriate set of
legislative provisions that deal rationally and objectively with varying degrees of dangerousness;
134.
Defendant also has the power to regulate nuisances and sanitation in accordance with
Sections 4 and 59 of the Municipal Powers Act:
4. In addition to the areas of jurisdiction conferred on it by other Acts, a local
municipality has jurisdiction in the following fields:
[...]
5 sanitation;
6 nuisances;
[...]
59. A local municipality may adopt by-laws on nuisances.
135.
To this end, Article 28 of the impugned by-law stipulates that:

28. The following constitute nuisances and are prohibited:
(1) for an animal not to wear the tag required under this by-law, except for a cat that has
a microchip in which the incorporated information allows the verification of the license
number issued for the cat;
(2) for an animal to cause damage to the property of others;
(3) for the owner, tenant or occupant of an occupancy unit and its outbuildings to keep
domestic animals who emit odours likely to disturb the neighbourhood or damage the
property;
(4) for a dog to bark, whine or howl or for a cat to meow so as to disturb the peace and
tranquility of a person;
(5) for an animal, to bite or attack, or try to bite or attack a person or another animal of
a permitted species under article 3;
(6) for an animal to be wandering;
(7) for an animal, to be on private property without the owners or occupants consent;
(8) for the guardian of an animal to fail to clean by all appropriate means any public or
private place soiled with the animals faeces and dispose of it in an approved container
Page 23 of 41
for disposal, except for persons accompanied by an assistance dog;

(9) tying an animal so that it has access to a public place and leaving it unattended;
(10) for a dog or a cat to dig in garbage, move it, tear the bags or knock over containers;
(11) feeding within city territory wild animals such as seagulls, gulls, pigeons, crows,
squirrels, raccoons, ducks and fish, stray animals. Despite the foregoing, the owner,
lessee or occupant of an occupancy unit can feed birds using a bird feeder located on
their unit;
(12) keeping an animal that does not belong to a permitted species under article 3;
(13) using traps to catch an animal outside a building except as permitted by the
authority having jurisdiction;
(14) letting a dog drink or bathe in a fountain or basin located in a public place;
(15) being in a fenced city playground, or on city land where a sign indicates that the
presence of dogs is prohibited.
136.
Defendants power to regulate nuisances does not carry with it the power to regulate
and assimilate to a nuisance an activity that is not inherently harmful and that does not prejudice
anyone;
137.
In addition, the Defendant must demonstrate the pursuit of an objective of public
interest when regulating nuisances;
138.
Various examples drawn from this section are clearly not a nuisance: for an animal
not wearing its tag as provided by the by-law (Article 28(1)), for an animal to bark, whine, howl
or meow only once so as to disturb only one person (Article 28(4)), or for an individual to feed
animals such as stray cats (Article 28(11));
139.
If there is nothing inherently harmful to the citizenry of a municipality, and
public safety is not at issue, then Defendant cannot argue it has properly defined a
nuisance. The Defendant cannot regulate the most banal animal behaviours by calling
them a nuisance: a dog drinking from a fountain or basin in a public place on a hot day
does not affect the enjoyment people experience from sharing the public place with him;
140.
Articles 28(1), (4), (6), (7), (11) and (15) of the impugned by-law do not refer to a
real and objective nuisance, and the power of a municipality to define a nuisance does not
include the power to create a nuisance;
141.
Therefore Article 28 is ultra vires and invalid, unreasonably, systematically and
arbitrarily assimilating some situations to nuisance without regulating any public interest or
any other municipal purpose such as to ensure residents safety, peace, quiet and cleanliness of
public property;
142.
Intervenants respectfully submit that the criteria of danger or risk are excessive
and absurd: a dog barking at another animal is not engaging in a dangerous behaviour in se;
143.
In 2015, the province of Quebec adopted the Animal Welfare and Safety Act chapter
B-3.1 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which provides that:
Page 24 of 41
4. Any provision of an Act granting a power to a municipality and any provision of a

by-law made by a municipality that is inconsistent with a provision of this Act or the
regulations is inoperative.
The same applies to any provision of the standards or codes of practice compliance with
which is made mandatory by the Government under paragraph 3 of section 64.
144.
Any provision of a by-law is inoperative if it is incompatible with this Act;
145.
The Act contains the following provisions:

5. The owner or custodian of an animal must ensure that the animals welfare and safety
are not compromised. An animals welfare or safety is presumed to be compromised if
the animal does not receive care that is consistent with its biological needs. Such care
includes but is not limited to ensuring that the animal
[...]
3 is allowed an opportunity for adequate exercise;
[...]
6 is provided with the necessary care when injured, ill or suffering; and
7 is not subjected to abuse or mistreatment that may affect its health.
[...]
6. A person may not, by an act or omission, cause an animal to be in distress.
For the purposes of this Act, an animal is in distress if
1 it is subjected to conditions that, unless immediately alleviated, will cause the animal
death or serious harm;
2 it is subjected to conditions that cause the animal to suffer acute pain; or
3 it is exposed to conditions that cause the animal extreme anxiety or suffering.
[]
8. The owner or custodian of a cat, a dog, an equine or any other animal determined by
regulation must provide the animal with the stimulation, socialization and
environmental enrichment that are consistent with its biological needs.
[]
14. A veterinary surgeon or an agrologist who has reasonable cause to believe that an
animal is being or has been subjected to abuse or mistreatment or that it is or has been
in distress must, without delay, report their observations to the Minister and provide the
Minister with
[]
146.
The purpose of this legislation is to protect animals, including pit bull-type dogs;
147.
The provisions of the by-law that forbid the adoption, provide for euthanasia and
require that pit bull-type dogs be muzzled on a continuous or almost continuous basis are
incompatible with the Act that ensures the welfare and security of animals, that ensures that
animals are not in distress (which includes conditions that will cause the animal death) and that
provides for the stimulation, socialization and environmental enrichment that are consistent with
the animals biological needs;
148.
Furthermore, veterinarians will be forced to do things by virtue of the by-law that
they are supposed to denounce by virtue of the Act;
Page 25 of 41
149.
Also, Article 898.1 C.C.Q. provides that:

Art. 898.1 Animals are not things. They are sentient beings and have biological
needs.
In addition to the provisions of special Acts which protect animals, the provisions of
this Code and of any other Act concerning property nonetheless apply to animals.
150.
The principal provisions protecting animals as referred are sections 445.01 et seq. of
the Criminal Code (L.R.C. (1985), c. C-46), the Animal Health Protection Act (RLRQ, c. P-42)
and the Regulation Respecting the Safety and Welfare of Cats and Dogs (RLRQ, c. P-42, r.10.1);
151.
Article 898.1 C.C.Q., adopted in 2015, demonstrates the obvious intention of the
legislator to improve the legal situation of animals and to punish cruelty against animals;
152.
It is appropriate to recall the preamble of Act, which states that:

Whereas the condition of animals has become a social concern;
Whereas animals contribute to the quality of life in Qubec society;
Whereas the human species has an individual and collective responsibility to
ensure animal welfare and safety;
Whereas animals are sentient beings that have biological needs;
Whereas the State considers it essential to intervene in order to establish an
effective legal and administrative regime to ensure animal welfare and safety;
153.
The impugned by-law does not treat pit bull-type dogs as sentient beings
meritworthy of protection;
154.
The impugned by-law takes as a premise, with no justification, that pit bull-type
dogs are dangerous animals, and its provisions contravene the protections afforded by the
provincial legislation;
155.
The impugned by-law also puts the entire feline population of Montreal in danger, by
irrationally presuming any cat not on a leash is a stray animal, at Article 1:
stray animal: any animal not held by a leash, that is not accompanied by a person
capable of controlling it and that is not on its guardians land, with the exception of a
community cat.
156.
The impugned by-law unjustifiably infringes on animals right to be fed, sheltered,
protected and well-cared for, a right assured them as a consequence of their new legal status of
sentient beings;
157.
Furthermore, the impugned by-law provides that the owner of an animal is
responsible for any infraction even if the animal is not under his care, as per Article 53:
53. The owner of an animal is responsible for any offence under this by-law, even if the
animal is not under their care, unless the owner proves that at the time the offence was
committed, a third party other than a member of the owners family under the age of 18
Page 26 of 41
accompanied the animal, without the owners knowledge and consent, express or
implied.
158.
This provision of the by-law is in conflict with the norm of civil responsibility set out
in Article 1466 C.C.Q.:
Art. 1466. The owner of an animal is liable to reparation for injury it has caused,
whether the animal was under his custody or that of a third person, or had strayed or
escaped. A person making use of the animal is, together with the owner, also liable
during that time;
159.
The legislative norm set out in the Civil Code of Quebec must necessarily take
precedence over Article 53 of the impugned by-law, according to the hierarchy of norms and the
distribution of constitutional powers;
160.
In summary, these provisions of the impugned by-law exceed the municipal powers
conferred by the Loi sur les comptences municipales; the provisions do not have a valid
municipal purpose; the provisions are incompatible with the Animal Welfare and Safety Act and
the Civil Code of Quebec and are consequently ultra vires, and hence, null, without effect and
inoperative;
THE PROVISIONS OF THE BY-LAW ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL: VIOLATION OF
THE CANADIAN AND QUEBEC CHARTERS
161.
The impugned by-law, in Articles 2 and 49 to 53, forces a person to accept the
intrusion of the competent authority into his or her house on pain of a significant fine:
2. The authority having jurisdiction exercises the powers granted under this by-law and,
in particular, may:
(1) visit and inspect any occupancy unit for the purposes of this by-law;
(2) have or give orders to have euthanized any animal that is dangerous, at-risk,
prohibited, stray, dying, gravely injured or highly contagious;
(3) demand proof of sterilization of any dog or cat;
(4) demand that the guardian produce any documentation relevant to the application of
this by-law;
(5) apply to a judge to obtain permission to capture and seize, at the place where it is
being kept, any animal that contravenes this by-law or for which the guardian refuses or
neglects to comply with an order issued by the authority having jurisdiction.
For the purposes of paragraph (1), any owner, tenant, or occupant of an occupancy unit,
must, upon presentation of a piece of identification by the authority having jurisdiction,
give access to the occupancy unit.
No person may hinder, in any way, the capture of an animal by the authority having
jurisdiction.
It is an offence under this by-law to inconvenience, to insult, to prohibit or impede in
any manner the access referred to in paragraph (1) of the first paragraph or to otherwise
obstruct that access, as well to deny or neglect to comply with a request that is made
under this by-law.
Page 27 of 41
162.
The provisions of the by-law are ultra vires, by not proposing a limit as to when a
person must give access to his residence for the purposes of such intrusion, while the
requirement of a reasonable hour comes from the Cities and Towns Act and from the
Municipal Powers Act;
163.
The Cities and Towns Act and the Municipal Powers Act are the statutes which
permit the Defendant to adopt by-laws, and these enabling statutes do not require that property
owners accept visits by municipal inspectors at any hour of the day or night. The impugned
by-law does not respect the limits set out by the enabling legislation;
164.
Article 2(3) of the impugned by-law makes it an offence for a homeowner to
interfere in the capture of an animal and in fact to engage in any behaviour of any kind that
inconveniences, offends, prevents or impedes the municipal officer in any fashion, that
prevents him from entering the residential premises or to engage in any behaviour by which
someone neglects or refuses to obey the order of the municipal inspector keeping in mind
that these extravagant powers are attributed in a context which can lead to the seizure of
an animal, the imprisonment of that animal depriving it of the rights set forth in the
Animal Welfare and Safety Act, and finally the putting to death of a healthy and innocent
animal;
165.
Owners can also be deprived of their permit for any minor arbitrary offence not
related to their capacity or responsibility as a pet owner, despite Charter guarantees;
166.
Sections 7 and 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provide that:
Section 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right
not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental
justice.
Section 8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
167.
Sections 7 and 8 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms provide that:
Section 7. A persons home is inviolable.
Section 8. No one may enter upon the property of another or take anything therefrom
without his express or implied consent.
168.
Intervenants contend, as do Plaintiffs, that the provisions of the contested by-law fail
to respect these fundamental rights and this infringement is not compatible with the principles of
fundamental justice:
a. The goal of the by-law is not of such importance as to justify infringing rights
guaranteed to all individuals by virtue of section 8 of the Canadian Charter;
b. Most of the provisions of the by-law deal with animal population control,
permits and nuisances, but these provisions do not even attempt to balance
individual rights with collective concerns, nor do they in fact promote public
safety, for the reasons explained above;
Page 28 of 41
c. It is not necessary to authorize intrusion into an individuals home without a

warrant to achieve compliance with the by-law;
d. The power to search has to be appreciated in light of the basic and essential
expectation of privacy of individuals in their own homes;
e. This high and reasonable expectation should not be attenuated by the mere
fact that individuals choose to welcome domestic animals into their homes and
families;
f. Moreover, in terms of animal protection, the law cannot reasonably justify
permitting the intrusion into a dwelling and search of that dwelling without the
individuals consent or a warrant issued by a competent tribunal;
g. The powers of inspection provided for in the impugned by-law are not
necessary for public safety; they are not properly delimited; and the right of
privacy of an individual and the inviolability of an individuals home are values
of far greater importance to protect and safeguard;
169.
The impugned by-law summons the owner, tenant or occupant of residential
premises to grant immediate access to the competent authority solely upon the presentation of
a proof of identity, thereby creating the highly questionable situation where a municipal
inspector, a person without professional standing nor bound by a code of ethics, has
greater powers to search a dwelling than a police officer of the S.P.V.M., Sret du Qubec,
or R.C.M.P.;
170.
The impugned by-law not only infringes upon sections 7 and 8 of both Charters, but
also infringes on sections 4 (safeguard of dignity, honour and reputation), 5 (respect for private
life) and 6 (peaceful enjoyment and free disposition of property) of the Qubec Charter;
171.
The impugned by-law grants a competent authority discretionary powers that are
too large, that do not respect procedural equity, that transgress principles of procedural fairness
in contradiction with the principles of fundamental justice [as will be explored further in this
Intervention], and that are unconstitutional and therefore void and invalid;
THE PROVISIONS OF THE BY-LAW ARE DISCRIMINATORY
172.
The various fees imposed by the contested by-law make it impossible to own pets for
the economically under-privileged: under the factitious garb of safety, the Defendant
discriminates on the basis of social class;
173.
The impugned by-law, for instance, by virtue of requirement of a residential address
for issuance of a pet license, makes it impossible for people experiencing homelessness to have a
pet;
174.
People experiencing homelessness cannot provide a residential address to be able to
obtain the required municipal permit, nor can they afford the cost of such permit; they are
generally in a precarious situation that makes them less likely to be able to abide by the terms of
the by-law;
Page 29 of 41
175.
As a result, people experiencing homelessness are more likely to be sentenced to
fines that can also not afford to pay, and to have their animals seized and killed as a result;
176.
The impugned by-law is so onerous for people experiencing homelessness, given
their particularly vulnerable condition, that its differential prejudicial impact results in
discrimination against this group by reason of their social condition;
177.
Given the vulnerable condition of people experiencing homelessness, this form of
discrimination creates serious and worrisome inequalities prejudicial to this group;
178.
The provisions of the by-law which target pit bull-type dogs are also
discriminatory because they provide the systematic application, by default, of a treatment
reserved for dangerous dogs to pit bull-type dogs, based solely on the morphological
characteristics of the animal;
179.
These provisions also create additional and different obligations for all custodians of
this category of dogs, which Intervenants argue is not permitted by the provisions of the enabling
law;
180.
These provisions permit the City of Montreal to impound or eliminate these dogs
which are neither strays, nor dangerous, nor suffering from a contagious disease;
181.
The prohibition of dogs which are not in fact dangerous, based solely upon their
morphological characteristics, is discriminatory;
182.
However, as explained above, there is no link between a dogs morphological
characteristics and its character or temperament;
183.
To systematically subject all dogs that appear to be pit bull type dogs to the
treatment that should normally be reserved to dangerous dogs, regardless of their actual
temperament, is arbitrary, unreasonable, abusive, irrational and discriminatory;
184.
Indeed, these provisions create, without justification and without basis, a difference
of treatment in terms of additional obligations that fall upon the guardians of pit bull type
dogs;
185.
The by-law specifically stipulates that in public spaces the guardians of pit bulltype dogs have to keep their dogs muzzled on a 1.25 metre leash, and must hold a special
license, as provided by Article 17 of the by-law:
17. The guardian of a pit bull-type dog who holds a special license must comply with
the following special conditions when the animal is outside a building:
(1) the animal must be muzzled at all times;
(2) the animal must be kept on a leash no longer than 1.25 m, except in dog exercise
areas or in a area closed off by a fence at least 2 m high, with mesh tight enough to
prevent anyone from introducing a hand or foot inside the area;
(3) the animal must be under the supervision of a person 18 years of age or older;
Page 30 of 41
(4) the animal wears the tag issued by the city with the special license.
The special license for a Pit bull-type dog is revoked if the holder is convicted of an
offence under this article. Where applicable, the guardian must have the animal
euthanized following an order for euthanasia issued by the authority having jurisdiction.
186.
While waiting to obtain the special license for a pit bull type dog, above and
beyond the conditions provided for under Article 17 of the by-law, the guardian of such a dog
must muzzle his dog at all times, even within his home, as per Article 55 of the by-law;
187.
By wearing a muzzle, these dogs have difficulty eating and drinking, extending their
tongues to pant (which is how dogs thermoregulate), and are unable to play with their toys or
interact with other dogs;
188.
The impugned by-law has a direct, significant and negative impact on the lives of the
guardians of these dogs and on the animals themselves;
189.
This by-law marginalizes and stigmatizes the owners of pit bull-type dogs in
relation to other dog owners, which causes them an unjust distress;
190.
void;
The provisions of the by-law which target pit bull-type dogs are discriminatory and
191.
Also, Article 21 of the by-law creates a distinction of treatment depending on the
weight of the dog, compelling owners of dogs weighing 20 kg or more to wear a head collar or
harness attached to the leash:
21. All dogs must be led by a leash no longer than 1.85 m. In addition, all dogs
weighing 20 kg or more must wear a head halter or a harness to which the leash is
attached.
The first paragraph does not apply if the dog:
(1) is inside a building;
(2) is kept on a private parcel of land or immovable and its outbuildings with a
restraining device preventing it from getting out when the land is not fenced in;
(3) is on a private parcel of land or immovable and its outbuildings, which is fenced in
to contain it within its boundaries;
(4) is in a dog exercise area equipped for that purpose in any place designated by the
city.
192.
This obligation is arbitrarily applicable to these owners, without consideration for
any correlation between the animals weight and any actual dangerousness;
193.
Defendant exceeds its powers by failing to make its by-law applicable to all dogs, but
only to dogs of a given weight (20 kg or more), which is a distinction that is not authorized by
law;
194.
The by-law improperly and arbitrarily divides owners into two categories of
Page 31 of 41
individuals whose rights and obligations vary based on an arbitrary, unfair and unjust standard;
195.
Individuals with criminal records are also granted fewer rights with respect to dog
ownership under the impugned by-law than individuals with no criminal record, which is
discriminatory, illegal and should be declared null and void;
196.
The requirement of a criminal background check without regard for any rational link
between the nature of such criminal record and the limitation on dog ownership also constitutes
an invasion of privacy;
197.
Articles 16(2) and (5) of the impugned by-law provide that an applicant must provide
a certificate attesting he has no criminal record, or, an attestation from the S.P.V.M. to the effect
that he has not been found guilty, in the five years preceding the application for a license or its
renewal, of an infraction to a provision of law set out in Annex 1 of the by-law:
16. It is permitted to keep a Pit bull-type dog if the animals guardian is the holder of a
special license for Pit bull-type dogs issued by the city.
Subject to the third paragraph, the city issues a special license for a Pit bull-type dog if
the following conditions are met:
[...]
(5) the applicant provides a certificate of negative search of a criminal record or, in the
case of a certificate of positive search of a criminal record, a certificate issued by the
Service de police de la Ville de Montral confirming that the applicant has not been
declared guilty, in the five years prior to the date of filing or renewal of the license
application, of an offence under a provision listed in schedule 1 of this bylaw;
[...]
198.
If an applicant cannot provide a certificate of negative search of a criminal record or
the certificate issued by the S.P.V.M., he will not be entitled to the special permit allowing him
to possess a pit bull-type dog;
199.
If the applicant cannot obtain a permit, his dog will be considered a prohibited dog
under Article 1 of the by-law, resulting in the completely disproportionate consequence to the
dog of potentially being killed by the authority having jurisdiction under Article 2(2) of the bylaw;
200.
Consequently, in regard to both their scope and their effects, these provisions are
discriminatory and should be declared null and void;
THE PROVISIONS OF THE BY-LAW ARE VAGUE, IMPRECISE, UNFAIR,
DISCRETIONARY AND OPPRESSIVE
201.
Some regulatory measures may appear prima facie to be useful, but are nonetheless
vague and arbitrary because the scope of their application is not circumscribed;
202.
Articles 1 (prohibited dog), 2(3), 11, 16(2), 19(1), 34(1) and 45(3) all provide for
sterilization of animals without regard for the age, physical development, maturity and health of
the animal, all of which are elements a veterinarian must take into consideration before deciding
whether and when to perform sterilization ethically;
Page 32 of 41
203.
The regulatory measures of the by-law related to sterilization are likely to put pet
owners in an illegal situation since the only derogation provided by these Articles is under a
written opinion of a veterinary surgeon establishing that the animal cannot be sterilized;
204.
In addition, definitions in Article 1 of the by-law concerning pit bull-type,
dangerous, at-risk and hybrid dogs are vague and unenforceable;
205.
Honourable Judge Gouin noted in paragraph 43 of his judgment that it is
difficult to circumscribe the limits of the dfinition trs lastique of pit bull-type dogs:
le Tribunal a t mme de constater, lors de laudition, que mme la Ville ne russit pas
la cerner. Cest tout dire!;
206.
The by-law does not specify what the term crossbreed means, in particular if a
specific percentage of belonging to one of the impugned breeds is required in order to be
considered a crossbreed;
207.
With respect to morphological characteristics and the visual identification of dogs,
the by-law does not specify in any way either what characteristics or how many characteristics
are required in order to determine that a dog is indeed a pit bull-type dog;
208.
As soon as a peace officer points at a dog and decides that it is a pit bull-type
dog, the dog becomes a pit bull in the eyes of the law and the owner cannot prove
otherwise, since it is often impossible to prove the breed of a mixed-breed dog;
209.
The criteria with respect to the identification of pit bull-type dogs in Article 1
of the by-law are too vague, imprecise, arbitrary and subjective to allow the identification
of dogs affected by the by-law in a uniform and reliable manner by the Veterinarian
Intervenants and a fortiori, by the competent authority;
210.
That being said, the by-law does not give a reasonable warning to permit citizens to
conduct themselves in conformity with the law, and it does not appropriately limit the power of
the competent authority;
211.
This vagueness and imprecision constitute an unreasonable, unfair, discretionary and
oppressive exercise of authority that can be likened to an abuse of power which justifies these
articles being declared null and void;
212.
Further, the impugned by-law sets out the kinds of animals that residents can have in
their homes and limits the number of pets allowed per household;
213.
Article 3 of the by-law sets forth a list of permitted animals:

3. It is prohibited for any person to possess, have in their possession or keep in captivity
for any purpose whatsoever, animals that are not among the following species:
(1) dogs, except prohibited dogs;
(2) cats;
(3) rabbits;
(4) ferrets;
(5) domestic rodents less than 1.5 kg;
Page 33 of 41
(6) flying possums born in captivity;

(7) hedgehogs born in captivity, except Erinaceus;
(8) birds born in captivity, except ducks, geese, canaries, swans, screamers and other
anseriformes, hen, guinea fowls, turkeys, pheasants, tetras and other gallinaceous,
ostriches, rheas, kiwis, emus, cassowaries, ratite birds and other struthioniformes;
(9) reptiles born in captivity, except snakes whose length in adulthood, reaches more
than 3 meters, venomous snakes, lizards whose length in adulthood, reaches more than
2 meters, the venomous lizards, sea turtles, turtles from Tryonychidae family and
alligators, crocodiles, caimans and other crocodilians;
(10) the American toad (Bufo americanus), thevwood frog (Rana sylvatica), the mink
frog (Rana septentrionalis), the leopard frog (Rana pipiens), the green frog (Rana
clamitans), the mudpuppy (Necturus maculosus), the bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), 16060/5 the newt (Notophthalmus viridescens) and all the exotic amphibians, except
poisonous amphibians.
214.
Although Intervenants agree certain species of animals should not be kept by
individuals in their homes because they are dangerous to humans or because it is cruel to keep
such animals in captivity, this restrictive list of the species of animals set out in the impugned bylaw is arbitrary, vague and imprecise;
215.
Furthermore, fish are not included in the allowed species;
216.
Any animal not included in the list of allowed species is prohibited and may be
killed immediately;
217.
The by-law could legitimately entail municipal inspectors entering into private
homes to require parents to kill their childrens goldfish (illustrating that it is ill-thought out);
218.
These provisions are vague, arbitrary and imprecise, which make their application
difficult, if not impossible, and they should be declared null and void;
THE PROVISIONS OF THE BY-LAW VIOLATE SECTION 7 OF THE CANADIAN
CHARTER AND SECTION 5 OF THE QUEBEC CHARTER
219.
Section 7 of the Canadian Charter provides that everyone has the right to liberty:
Section 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right
not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental
justice.
220.
Sections 5 and 7 of the Quebec Charter provides that:

Section 5. Every person has a right to respect for his private life.
Section 7. A persons home is inviolable.
221.
The Courts have long recognized that the right to liberty and privacy protect against
intrusion by the State in important and fundamental choices that a person can make during his
lifetime;
Page 34 of 41
222.
The choice an individual makes to bring a domestic animal into his home to live
with him and his family is precisely the kind of important and fundamental decision
protected by the right to liberty and privacy safeguarded by the Charters;
223.
The impugned by-law creates significant constraints and prohibitions in regard to this
personal and fundamental choice and constitutes an invasion of privacy of the homes and lives of
the individuals and families who are residents of Defendant City of Montreal;
224.
The profound way in which the by-law alters the normal and widespread activity of
pet ownership, goes beyond a valid municipal purpose and affects the way people live, which is
clearly ultra vires and therefore null and inoperative;
225.
The violations of these constitutionally guaranteed rights cannot be justified in a free
and democratic society;
THE PROVISIONS OF THE BY-LAW VIOLATE PROCEDURAL EQUITY AND
IGNORE THE NEW JURIDICAL STATUS OF ANIMALS
226.
A sweeping discretionary power is conferred to the competent authority under
Article 2 of the impugned by-law which can lead to abuse of power considering its vague and
imprecise character when it comes to the identification of the dog;
227.
Competent authorities appear to include not only animal control officers, but
also peace officers, city employees, as well as third party contractors, such as Berger Blanc
or any private security firm hired by the City, which means that all of these people are
permitted to enter into any residential dwelling without a warrant, and without any real
control over what these authorities may do once they have penetrated the residential
dwelling;
228.
These competent authorities have the ultimate power and discretion to declare any
dog to be potentially dangerous, as well as to declare any potentially dangerous dog as now
dangerous, and thus they can order any dog to be killed without a court hearing or any kind
of recourse;
229.
Within the framework imposed by the by-law, it is impossible for the owner, for
example, to contest the designation made by a competent authority who deems his or her
dog to be a pit bull-type dog;
230.
Granting such unnecessarily excessive powers to persons who are not police
officers, and who may enter into homes without warrant, and who may make life-anddeath decisions about animals with no professional qualifications to do so, all without no
provision for due process, should give this Honourable Court concern for the serious
potential for abuse and improper conduct;
231.
The by-law has no mechanism to advise an owner of any impending change in the
classification of his dog, nor the basis for such change in classification, when, for example, an
at-risk dog is declared dangerous; nor does the by-law provide any mechanism allowing an
owner to contest such designations, as illustrated under Articles 18, 32, 39 and 52 of the
impugned by-law:
Page 35 of 41
18. The following are guilty of an offence:

(2) the guardian of a dog referred to in article 17, who, within 48 hours following the
to a veterinary surgeon or a shelter to have it euthanized;
(3) the guardian who, within 72 hours of the death of their dog, fails to provide the
euthanasia;
32. When the at-risk dog mentioned in article 31 is declared dangerous to public safety
by the authority having jurisdiction, the guardian of the dog must have the animal
euthanized in accordance with the order for euthanasia issued by the authority having
jurisdiction.
When the dog mentioned in first paragraph is declared not dangerous to public safety by
the authority having jurisdiction, the latter may require that the guardian obtain a special
license for an at-risk dog and comply with the special conditions for at-risk dogs required
under this by-law.
38. All expenses incurred by the city under this section shall be at the expense of the
guardian of the animal.
39. The following are guilty of an offence:
(2) the guardian of a dog covered by this section, who, within 48 hours following the
to a veterinary surgeon or a shelter so that it is euthanized;
(3) the guardian who, within 72 hours of the death of their dog, fails to provide to the
euthanasia.
52. No license may be issued or renewed to a guardian declared guilty of three offences
under article 29 of this by-law with respect to a nuisance mentioned in paragraph (5) of
article 28.
232.
These provisions violate Section 23 of the Quebec Charter on due process:

Section 23. Every person has a right to a full and equal, public and fair hearing by an
independent and impartial tribunal, for the determination of his rights and obligations or
of the merits of any charge brought against him.
The tribunal may decide to sit in camera, however, in the interests of morality or public
order.
233.
In fact, under the new by-law, it is impossible to prove innocence with respect to
an alleged infraction, in contravention of the right to due process, to a full and complete
Page 36 of 41
defense, and to the respect of the rule of audi alteram partem;

234.
These judicial guarantees are ignored and no process of investigation is foreseen to
ensure rigor and due process in the application of the by-law, which is entirely left to the
unfettered discretion of the Defendant, and this may result in an abuse of power;
235.
When a dog-related complaint is made to the SPVM, and before it is transferred to
the canine patrol, an incident report is filed; in order to receive a copy of the complaint and to
understand what one is being accused of, the dog owner is required to submit an Access to
Information request, which may take weeks if not months to yield a result;
236.
There exist inevitable delays in animal assessments, transmission of evaluation
reports to competent authorities and their decisions on applicable measures, as there are only
three veterinarians authorized to assess the level of dangerousness of animals on behalf of the
Defendant;
237.
Despite all this, there is no delay for the application of the by-law from the
moment a dog is suspected of being at risk following a complaint, which means that the
dog is forced to wear a muzzle before its dangerousness evaluation by a qualified
veterinarian: the guardian and his animal are presumed guilty, prior to any investigation,
and have no recourse to refute any presumption or finding of guilt;
238.
Such dangerousness evaluations can only provide a snapshot of a dogs temperament
and level of dangerousness, and the evaluation results are not in fact predictive of future
behaviour;
239.
The competent authority is not even bound by the results of such evaluations
or recommendations it has itself mandated, and the choice of any actual measures is purely
discretionary and hence arbitrary; this may lead to serious and irremediable consequences,
such as unjustified orders to keep dogs under restrictive conditions, or unfounded orders of
euthanasia;
240.
In other words, a dog may be ordered killed on the mere suspicion of the owners or
the animals guilt, which is far from the conventional burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt
(or even the balance of probabilities for that matter);
241.
Furthermore, under the new by-law, an order to kill is automatic for an animal that
kills another animal or a human; there is no assessment prescribed, as was the case under the
superseded by-laws, of whether the incident resulting in death was caused by a normal defence
reaction of the animal or if the liability may lie with any other person or animal;
242.
Let us be clear: it is not difficult to imagine a scenario where a dog kills an intruder
in the defence of its owner and family, and notwithstanding having saved innocent human lives,
will nonetheless be subject to an order to be killed by the Defendant, with no recourse, and
certainly with no justice;
243.
The absence of meaningful judicial remedies make the by-law even more alarming;
contrary to the superseded by-laws in some districts, the new by-law provides no possibility
for the owner to produce a counter-expertise or to request a second opinion on
dangerousness of the dog; the owner must comply with whatever the Defendant arbitrarily
Page 37 of 41
decides;
244.
This contravention of fundamental rights is aggravated by the consequences
engendered systematically for the owners;
245.
Anyone who violates the by-law is liable to fines ranging from $300 to $600, or fines
ranging from $500 to $700, if the infraction deals with a threat to safety (bites, off-leash dogs or
dogs without a muzzle), the whole as stipulate in Articles 49 to 53 of the by-law:
49. Any person who contravenes any provision of this by-law or any ordinance adopted
pursuant to this by-law is guilty of an offence and is liable:
(1) in the case of an individual:
(a) for a first offence, to a fine of $300 to $600;
(b) for a second offence, to a fine of $600 to $1,200;
(c) for any subsequent offence, to a fine of $1,200 to $2,000;
(2) in the case of a legal person:
(a) for a first offence, to a fine of $500 to $1,000;
(b) for a second offence, to a fine of $1,000 to $2,500;
(c) for any subsequent offence, to a fine of $2,500 to $4,000.
50. Despite article 49, any person who contravenes any of the provisions of articles 11,
17, paragraphs (1) and (2) of articles 18, 21, 29 by a nuisance mentioned in paragraph
(5) of article 28, 36 and paragraphs (1) and (2) of article 39, is guilty of an offence and
is liable:
(a) for a first offence, to a fine of $500 to $750;
(b) for a second offence, to a fine of $750 to $1,500;
51. Despite article 49, a person who contravenes paragraph (1) of article 3 of this bylaw is guilty of an offence and is liable:
(a) for a first offence, to a fine of $1,000 to $1,500;
52. No license may be issued or renewed to a guardian declared guilty of three offences
under article 29 of this by-law with respect to a nuisance mentioned in paragraph (5) of
article 28.
53. The owner of an animal is responsible for any offence under this by-law, even if the
animal is not under their care, unless the owner proves that at the time the offence was
committed, a third party other than a member of the owners family under the age of 18
accompanied the animal, without the owners knowledge and consent, express or
Page 38 of 41
implied.
246.
The by-law provides that the owner must at all times maintain control of his dog so
that the dog does not escape (Article 20). Under the by-law, the infraction of dropping the leash
leads to a bigger fine, compared to the prior by-laws for the district of Cte-des-Neiges - NotreDame-de-Grce, for example, while a case of a bite, paradoxically, leads to a lower fine, the
whole as appears from the Rglement sur le contrle des animaux of Cte-des-Neiges - NotreDame-de-Grce (RCA13 17212), Chapter III, articles 34 to 36, produced herewith as
247.
In general, the impugned by-law is so flawed that it must be invalidated as a
whole without any severance, because it violates the laws setting out the rights of animals,
and because it is prohibitive, absurd and arbitrary;
248.
With regard to the numerous and egregious violations of basic rights and the
arbitrariness of the powers of inspection, it is clear that the by-law unjustifiably violates Section
23 of the Quebec Charter, does not assure due process, does not respect the new juridical status
of animals as sentient beings and their related rights, so it is ultra vires, unconstitutional and null
or, at least, it is inoperative in its entirety;
USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS IN BAD FAITH AND CONTRARY TO THE PROPER
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
249.
The stubbornness of Defendant to insist upon its by-law is a waste of taxpayer dollars
in bad faith;
250.
Defendant has acted in bad faith by adopting a by-law without public
consultations; choosing to flout the uncontradicted scientific evidence; choosing to ignore
the recommendations of the OVMQ; misrepresenting to the public that the animal which
killed Mrs. Vadnais was a pit bull type dog; stating repeatedly and inaccurately that
genetic tests were being done to confirm the race of the dog; ignoring the public
health statistics that indicate no pit bull type dog has ever been implicated in the death of
anyone in Quebec, for as long as public health statistics have been kept;
251.
The fact that the Defendant keeps on promoting this by-law despite its many prima
facie flaws and despite the suggestion of Honourable Justice Gouin for a retour la table
dessin at paragraph 58 of his judgment, is a proof of bad faith considering the cost to implement
the ban (registration, enforcement, reimbursement of citizens in consideration of the sursis, etc.),
and the unnecessary creation of a broad range of harm to Montreal residents, their families and
their domestic animals;
252.
In these circumstances, insisting upon defending what is indefensible is contrary to a
serene administration of justice;
WHEREFORE INTERVENANTS PRAY THIS HONOURABLE COURT:
GRANT Intervenants declaration of intervention;
DECLARE the By-law on Animal Control R.R.V.M. c.C-10 null, invalid and
without effect or, at least, inoperative in its entirety;
Page 39 of 41
IN THE ALTERNATIVE, DECLARE Articles 1 al. 3, 4, 10, 13, 18, 19 and 22; 2;
3; 15(1) and (2); 16; 17(1) and (2); 18; 27(2); 28; 32; 36; 38; 39; 42(3); 44; 45; 52; 53 and 55 of
the By-law on Animal Control R.R.V.M. c. C-10 to be null, invalid, without effect and
inoperative in their entirety;
GRANT provisional execution of the judgment to intervene herein, notwithstanding
appeal and without security;
THE WHOLE, with judicial costs.
MONTREAL, December 07 2016
Grey, Casgrain
Attorneys for Intervenants
Goldwater, Dub
Page 40 of 41
NOTICE OF PRESENTATION
TO:
Me Sibel Ataogul and Marie-Claude St-Amant

Melanon Marceau Grenier and Sciortino
1717 Ren-Lvesque Blvd. East
Montral, Quebec
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
TO:
Me Ren Cadieux and Justina Di Fazio

Blake, Cassels & Graydon
1 Place Ville Marie
Suite 3000
Montral, Qubec
Me Ghislain Ouimet
Dagenais, Gagnier, Biron
775 Gosford Street
4th floor
Montral, Qubec
Attorneys for Defendant
TAKE NOTICE that this declaration of intervention will be presented before this
Honourable Court, sitting in practice division for the District of Montral, on December 14 2016
at 9:00 a.m. in room 2.16 of the Court House of Montral, located at 1, Notre-Dame Street
East , Montral, Qubec, or so soon as counsel may be heard.
Intervenants intend to participate at that time in the elaboration of the case protocol.
GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY.
Grey, Casgrain
Goldwater, Dub
Page 41 of 41

Coalition To Promote The Safety of People and Canines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Coalition To Promote The Safety of People and Canines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CANADA

TO ONE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGES OF THE SUPERIOR COURT, SITTING IN

The Interest of the Intervenant Veterinarians

aucune ordonnance deuthanasie pour quelque chien que ce soit, y

dans lapplication de larticle 45 du Rglement, le gardien dun animal,

aux fins de la disposition transitoire contenue larticle 55 du

cas en vertu de larticle 17 du Rglement).

produced herewith as Intervenants Exhibit I-2;

i. The obligation to register the animal and obtain an animal tag;

On September 27 2016, Defendant adopted the aforementioned by-law;

(3) a hybrid dog;

A pit bull-type dog is defined in Article 1 as follows:

A dangerous dog is defined as being:

An at-risk dog is defined as being:

A hybrid dog is defined as being:

A stray animal is defined as being:

give access to the occupancy unit.

to a veterinary surgeon or a shelter so that it is euthanized;

THE INTEREST OF THE INTERVENANT VETERINARIANS

conscience of each veterinarian;

The entire by-law is ultra vires and therefore null;

THE PROVISIONS OF THE BY-LAW ARE ILLOGICAL, IRRATIONAL, ABUSIVE

whole, as is more fully explained in research conducted by the NCRC, Dog

allowed the broadcasting of the relevant passage by Projet Montral, which

mdecin vtrinaire ou un employ municipal de confirmer une race de chien ou le type

To this end, Article 28 of the impugned by-law stipulates that:

for disposal, except for persons accompanied by an assistance dog;

4. Any provision of an Act granting a power to a municipality and any provision of a

Any provision of a by-law is inoperative if it is incompatible with this Act;

The Act contains the following provisions:

Also, Article 898.1 C.C.Q. provides that:

It is appropriate to recall the preamble of Act, which states that:

c. It is not necessary to authorize intrusion into an individuals home without a

Article 3 of the by-law sets forth a list of permitted animals:

(6) flying possums born in captivity;

Furthermore, fish are not included in the allowed species;

Sections 5 and 7 of the Quebec Charter provides that:

18. The following are guilty of an offence:

These provisions violate Section 23 of the Quebec Charter on due process:

defense, and to the respect of the rule of audi alteram partem;

MONTREAL, December 07 2016

Me Sibel Ataogul and Marie-Claude St-Amant

Me Ren Cadieux and Justina Di Fazio

MONTREAL, December 07 2016

You might also like